There is no insurrection, at the moment, but there are dissidents . . . perhaps U.S. action would encourage them. (Fatally, in most cases.)
[QUOTE=Shodan]
I am guessing a war with Iran would resemble Desert Storm rather than Libya. We would be waging a more straightforward naval battle (or series of them) and not supporting an insurrection. Although you are correct about how it would go - like Desert Storm, it would be a turkey shoot for the air forces and then mopping up the mines.
[/QUOTE]
Well, perhaps like Desert Shield, since I don’t see ground forces being involved. But I think it would be pretty quick, even assuming anything happens at all (which I seriously doubt, since someone on the Iranian side has to be able to figure out why it would be a bad idea).
It would be a perfect opportunity, and I’d guess it would depend on how this all played out and what the final provocation was (see commoncents spectacular flame out as an example). That said, my guess is the mission would be focused and that taking out Iran’s purported nuclear weapons research and development facilities would involve some scope creep, and probably not something Obama or our allies (with the exception of Israel, who probably wouldn’t be involved for the same reasons they weren’t directly involved in Desert Shield/Storm) would go for casually.
-XT
It already has, without any declarations of war. Tanker War, 1984-88. It did finally draw a response in Operation Praying Mantis in 1988.
Hey wait. I’m one of those aforementioned [n-words] 
Hmm. While I agree that we’re not the same stuff as the WWII generation, I’d wager that anti-Iranian sentiment is still pretty high (to me), and that’s just on the threat of Iran and nukes. No one said anything about oil prices yet or danger to US troops.
Aforementioned where?
I think he’s referring to post 31. Too bad the mods didn’t just expunge that posters, um, contributions, to the thread.
-XT
In Iran? No, you are correct; there is not nearly the level of resistance to the reigning power that there was in Libya. And I doubt there is much the US could do to encourage one, at least in the short run. Even a resounding military defeat would not be likely to weaken the regime enough to make an overthrow possible.
I don’t know - would air strikes and naval actions be enough to prevent a nuclear threat against Israel? I suspect not, but the inherently suicidal nature of a nuclear strike on Israel is what I would rely on. Take out their air force, sink their navy, and clear out the mines. If they try any shit with nukes, they will be glowing in the dark for the next fifty years or so.
To give him credit, Obama was able to resist the pull to get more involved in Libya, although that was a situation in which the US was more tangential. This would be much more direct action.
The scope creep I fear is the idea of not only preventing an immediate strike against Israel, but making sure once and for all that they don’t get shirty with nukes - send in the SEALs to secure the nuclear facilities. And then a ground presence to be sure they abide by the sanctions. And…
Fortunately, this is just face-saving by the Iranians, and won’t come to war.
Regards,
Shodan
Yep. Plus, remember that the cost of oil extraction in Iran is much, much more than it is in Saudi Arabia. The Iranians want the price of oil to be higher than the Saudis do, and one way to make that happen is for there to be “instability” in the region. How very convenient…
Yeah, sorry. Post #31. I didn’t want to quote it in case I got in trouble or something.
Why is that?
Regards,
Shodan
[QUOTE=Shodan]
I don’t know - would air strikes and naval actions be enough to prevent a nuclear threat against Israel? I suspect not, but the inherently suicidal nature of a nuclear strike on Israel is what I would rely on. Take out their air force, sink their navy, and clear out the mines. If they try any shit with nukes, they will be glowing in the dark for the next fifty years or so.
[/QUOTE]
Well, it’s all speculative of course, since I don’t think any of this stuff is going to happen. But theoretically? Yeah, we could take out or at least throw back their nuclear program with just conventional air strikes and naval action. I think that Iran’s supposed invulnerability wrt their nuclear program is highly overrated, and my guess is that if we really wanted to destroy it or at least heavily disrupt the logistics and support for the programs we could do that with relative ease. I’m sure a lot of 'dopers are rolling their eyes at the American arrogance, but the truth is the truth. The Iranians aren’t in the same universe as the US, and anyone who thinks the US (and probably most of the NATO) military hasn’t developed conventional weapons to address hardened structures such as what the Iranians supposedly have their key nuclear research facilities in and has contingency plans to take them out is just not paying attention. We COULD do it…but WOULD we? That’s really the question in all things, not just military.
I’d say that if the Iranians are foolish enough to push the US and the rest of the western powers over this (:dubious:) then they are in for a rude awakening as to the actual, real world effectiveness of their military and their defensive preparations. The only mitigating factor would be if they have facilities that we simply don’t know about (possible, but I wouldn’t bet the farm on it…and I certainly wouldn’t want to be in one of those supposed secret and secure facilities if the US/NATO DID decide they were pissed off enough to take them out). Anything we do know about, no matter how well protected it supposedly is, could be damaged or destroyed, IMHO. The old adage of ‘if you can see it you can kill it’ is the best rule of thumb on these things, IMHO. Much more probable than magical hypersonic torpedoes.
Oh, to be sure, this would be mainly an American show, since we are the ones best able to project real force in the region. I’d say that if the Iranians are foolish enough to try to cut off the straights then Europe will be involved, but it will be the US Navy that provides the big hammers there.
Naw, I don’t see the necessity for any of that stuff. I seriously doubt that the US would put any boots on the ground at all, including SEAL teams. We wouldn’t be securing nuclear facilities, but hitting them with air strikes and tomahawks. Most likely our targets wouldn’t even involve Iran’s nuclear facilities though…more likely it would be coastal radar and C&C and other such military targets.
Yep. It won’t come to any of this because the Iranians know just as well as the rest of us on this message board that the pain wouldn’t be worth the gain for them. In fact, it would be disproportionately on the bad side. And any fantasy that they might have had that Obama et al would go soft on them probably evaporated in the glare of our little assistance of NATO over Libya. Hell, any fantasy that NATO wouldn’t act probably evaporated then as well.
-XT
[QUOTE=Shodan]
Why is that?
[/QUOTE]
John will probably give you a better answer, but off the top of my head I think it’s because of the nature of the type of oil and the environment the reserves are in (it’s lighter, IIRC, and not as easy to access…or as abundant in each pocket, so you need more wells) plus the Iranians, for obviously reasons, haven’t kept up with the latest drilling technology. Foreign companies aren’t going to invest heavily or give them new technologies after all (even leaving the various embargo’s aside). 
-XT
Thanks.
Regards,
Shodan
Wait, so you’re saying the Strait of Hormuz was magically mined during the Iran-Iraq War and that Iran was able to mine it without sending ships out to lay mines?
I don’t think your cites suggest that, and I think you should re-read my post that you were quoting because I can’t believe you are suggesting that.
If you delved into those cites a little closer you’d note that Iran never closed the Straits of Hormuz outright, they did start attacking Iraqi oil tankers and later the tankers of other Arab nations in the region that were assisting Iraq. However, your own cites go on to say that at no point was oil exporting significantly curtailed. Most likely because the Iranians genuinely lacked enough able warships to effectively shut down shipping in the region, and the United States had repeatedly threatened that it would declare war if Iran outright closed the Straits (which Iran never did, because of a fear of that declaration of war.)
If Iran is threatening to do what they did during the Iran-Iraq War then all they’re threatening to do is feebly try and sink a few tankers and not be very successful at it. Further, it wasn’t until near the end of the naval engagements that Iran actually started to be even moderately successful at disrupting trade–and the moment that happened both the USA and USSR started escorting Arab nation’s tankers and effectively made sure trade wasn’t meaningfully disrupted.
So your cites are not a good example of Iran magically laying mines, and they aren’t an example of Iran closing the Straits, because Iran’s goal was specifically to sink tankers, not to close the entire Strait. An important distinction, Iran could legitimately strike at Iraqi ships because it was at war with Iraq, and could get away with striking at other nation’s ships because they were essentially assisting Iraq. But to close an international strait (portions of it are outside of the international community’s recognized boundaries for both Oman and Iran, meaning true international waters and a true international passage) would have been a direct act of intentional and deliberate belligerence against both the USA and USSR–which Iran was not willing to do then, and probably isn’t willing to do now.
I’d have to look it up, but I think you’ve pretty much covered it. I remember hearing that it cost the Saudis about $2 to extract a barrel of oil whereas it costs something like $18 in Iran.
Iran has an assortment of anti ship missiles, some of which can be mounted on vehicles on shore.
The details about them are very sketchy on Wiki, but if they can be deployed and hidden similarly to the way Iraq used Scud missiles during the Kuwait wars, they can cause a lot of trouble and panic for weeks or even months.
This is correct, but mind what the proposed sanctions will actually do.
Assume people are buying oil at $100. It obviously doesn’t matter how much an individual source’s production costs are, they will not be able to sell for much above market price (which is of course why things like oil sands become viable economically at higher prices than at lower prices.) If your oil is intrinsically more expensive, you do want a higher overall price. So producers from Albertan oil sands to Iran are all going to want a higher overall price on the market.
However, these sanctions will make buying specifically Iranian oil more expensive than market price. So that means whatever the market price is, Iran has to sell at a discount off that price, or people will not buy the oil from Iran because it will simply be too expensive from that source.
Even if the price of oil jumps to $150/barrel, Iranian oil is still going to cost me as a purchaser market price + X, so it will always be more expensive for me than buying from another producer, any other producer. Meaning if I’m going to buy Iranian oil I’m going to demand a discount.
I don’t think anyone doubts Iran’s ability to “disrupt.” But there is a world of difference between “disrupt” trade through the Straits of Hormuz and “end trade through the Straits of Hormuz.” The number of ships that go through there is staggering, it’s a major international shipping lane. Iran doesn’t have enough portable missile launchers to stop even 5% of its traffic solely by sinking ships. In fact sinking a ship isn’t that easy, most of the Iranian attacks during the Iran-Iraq War actually didn’t sink ships, just damaged them.
I suspect Iran will use silkworm missiles, maybe some old Exocet missiles and etc (Iran can manufacture its own silkworm missiles at this point), they’re moderately effective but I can guarantee you Iran isn’t going to shut down shipping in the Straits of Hormuz with this technology. Much of this technology was used during the Iran-Iraq War and was not successful in significantly curbing shipments through the Straits.
Just to add to what Martin Hyde was saying, silkworm missiles, Exocet missiles and the like aren’t ballistic missiles like Scuds. The Iraqis could get away with hiding their Scud batteries (in the 1990’s) by putting them way out in the desert and firing their missiles on ballistic trajectories. Surface to sea or even air to sea missiles don’t have the same flight characteristics, and so the Iranians would need to be closer to the coast to fire them effectively.
Not to say they couldn’t do this and get away with it, but it would be a shoot and hide pattern…and eventually the odds would catch up to their batteries with negative consequences to their crews. And as Martin says, it would be for marginal gains. In the mean time their fixed facilities would be getting pasted…something the Iraqis weren’t really able to do back in the Iran/Iraq war. The US is capable of hitting any target in Iran pretty much at will. As Iraq found out in the early days of the second Iraq war, that really sucks when you are on the receiving end.
-XT